Training · PT · OT · SLP · AT · EP · RT · RN · MT · Audiology · Researcher
Cochrane / JBI Systematic Review Training
26 citations · 1 lens scored
Cochrane/JBI training is a low-cost, high-leverage credential for evidence-synthesis careers: Cochrane reviews are cited 2-3x more than non-Cochrane reviews (Bunn 2015) and AMSTAR-quality scores are significantly higher among Cochrane-trained teams (Useem 2015).
However, the training is narrow (synthesis methods only, not primary biostatistics or trial design), and rehab-clinician studies (Maher 2008; Scurlock-Evans 2014) show it accelerates publication output and PhD entry but does not on its own confer PI independence or major NIH funding.
Score anatomy · every lens
Methodology depth ×25
55/100
Deep in systematic review and meta-analysis methods (risk of bias, GRADE, meta-analytic statistics) but narrow; no training in primary study design, qualitative methods, or advanced biostatistics.
Publication signal ×20
72/100
Strong: trained reviewers reliably publish Cochrane/JBI reviews that are highly cited and routinely incorporated into clinical guidelines.
Grant readiness ×20
40/100
Modest boost; provides credible methods signaling for evidence-synthesis aims within larger grants, but insufficient alone for K/R-level independent funding.
Pathway to PI ×15
28/100
Limited as a standalone credential; functions as an on-ramp to doctoral training rather than a direct route to PI status.
Interdisciplinary fit ×10
75/100
High; systematic review skills transfer across medicine, public health, nursing, rehab, and policy, making trainees attractive collaborators.
Credential investment ×10
82/100
Very accessible: online modules and short workshops range from free to a few hundred dollars over weeks-to-months.
Sources · 26 on file
Evidence mix
- 11
- 42%
- 4
- 15%
- 4
- 15%
- 3
- 12%
- 1
- 4%
- 1
- 4%
- 2
- 8%
Publication years65% since 2021
6
Last reviewed 2026-1026 sources
24 other1 professional-society1 peer-reviewed
- 01Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of InterventionsHiggins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors) · Cochrane / Wiley · 2019Defines the methodological standards Cochrane trainees must master; completion of associated training is the de facto prerequisite for leading a Cochrane review.professional society
- 02DOI ↗Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA 2020 statementPage MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. · BMJ · 2021Demonstrates that formally trained systematic reviewers produce higher-quality, citable publications that anchor evidence-based grant proposals.Meta-analysisdoi:10.1136/bmj.n71
- 03DOI ↗Methodological quality of case series studies: an introduction to the JBI critical appraisal toolZ. Munn; T. H. Barker; S. Moola; C. Tufanaru; C. Stern; A. McArthur; M. Stephenson; E. Aromataris · JBI Evid Synth · 2020Case seriesdoi:10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00099
- 04DOI ↗Improving Methodological Quality in Meta-Analyses of Athlete Pain Interventions: An Overview of Systematic ReviewsS. Pineda-Escobar; C. García-Muñoz; O. Villar-Alises; J. Martinez-Calderon · Healthcare (Basel) · 2025Meta-analysisdoi:10.3390/healthcare13192508
- 05DOI ↗PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviewsM. J. Page; D. Moher; P. M. Bossuyt; I. Boutron; T. C. Hoffmann; C. D. Mulrow; L. Shamseer; J. M. Tetzlaff; E. A. Akl; S. E. Brennan; R. Chou; J. Glanville; J. M. Grimshaw; A. Hróbjartsson; M. M. Lalu; T. Li; E. W. Loder; E. Mayo-Wilson; S. McDonald; L. A. McGuinness; L. A. Stewart; J. Thomas; A. C. Tricco; V. A. Welch; P. Whiting; J. E. McKenzie · BMJ · 2021Clinical guidelinedoi:10.1136/bmj.n160
- 06DOI ↗A methodological and reporting quality assessment of systematic reviews/meta-analyses on exercise interventions for cognitive function in older adults with mild cognitive impairmentW. Zang; Q. Zou; N. Xiao; M. Fang; S. Wang; J. Chen · PeerJ · 2024Meta-analysisdoi:10.7717/peerj.17773
- 07DOI ↗PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic ReviewsM. L. Rethlefsen; S. Kirtley; S. Waffenschmidt; A. P. Ayala; D. Moher; M. J. Page; J. B. Koffel; PRISMA-S Group · Syst Rev · 2021Systematic reviewdoi:10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z
- 08DOI ↗A Reporting Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Sports Physical Therapy: A Review of ReviewsS. H. Cho; I. S. Shin · Healthcare (Basel) · 2021Meta-analysisdoi:10.3390/healthcare9101368
- 09DOI ↗The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsM. J. Page; J. E. McKenzie; P. M. Bossuyt; I. Boutron; T. C. Hoffmann; C. D. Mulrow; L. Shamseer; J. M. Tetzlaff; E. A. Akl; S. E. Brennan; R. Chou; J. Glanville; J. M. Grimshaw; A. Hróbjartsson; M. M. Lalu; T. Li; E. W. Loder; E. Mayo-Wilson; S. McDonald; L. A. McGuinness; L. A. Stewart; J. Thomas; A. C. Tricco; V. A. Welch; P. Whiting; D. Moher · J Clin Epidemiol · 2021Clinical guidelinedoi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001
- 10DOI ↗Methodological and reporting quality of qualitative evidence in the field of lower limb orthoses: a systematic reviewS. Shahabi; K. Bagheri Lankarani; M. Hoseeinabadi; S. T. Heydari · Assist Technol · 2023Systematic reviewdoi:10.1080/10400435.2023.2199056
- 11DOI ↗Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement propertiesD. Pieper; R. B. Buechter; L. Li; B. Prediger; M. Eikermann · J Clin Epidemiol · 2015Systematic reviewdoi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.009
- 12DOI ↗The Deficits of the Methodological and Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Field of Prosthetics and Orthotics in Iran: A Systematic ReviewS. Shahabi; C. Kiekens; P. Mojgani; C. Arienti; S. ShahAli; K. B. Lankarani · Rev Recent Clin Trials · 2023Systematic reviewdoi:10.2174/1574887118666230221114201
- 13DOI ↗A comparison of two assessment tools used in overviews of systematic reviews: ROBIS versus AMSTAR-2R. Perry; A. Whitmarsh; V. Leach; P. Davies · Syst Rev · 2021Narrative reviewdoi:10.1186/s13643-021-01819-x
- 14DOI ↗Adherence to the PRISMA statement and its association with risk of bias in systematic reviews published in rehabilitation journals: A meta-research studyT. Innocenti; D. Feller; S. Giagio; S. Salvioli; S. Minnucci; F. Brindisino; C. Cosentino; L. Piano; A. Chiarotto; R. Ostelo · Braz J Phys Ther · 2022Systematic reviewdoi:10.1016/j.bjpt.2022.100450
- 15DOI ↗Extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (PRISMA-LSR): checklist and explanationE. A. Akl; J. Khabsa; C. Iannizzi; V. Piechotta; L. A. Kahale; J. M. Barker; J. E. McKenzie; M. J. Page; N. Skoetz; PRISMA-LSR Group · BMJ · 2024Systematic reviewdoi:10.1136/bmj-2024-079183
- 16DOI ↗Assessment of the reporting quality of resistance training interventions in randomised controlled trials for lower limb tendinopathy: A systematic reviewI. Burton; A. McCormack · Clin Rehabil · 2022Systematic reviewdoi:10.1177/02692155221088767
- 17DOI ↗Rapid reviews and the methodological rigor of evidence synthesis: a JBI position statementA. C. Tricco; H. Khalil; C. Holly; G. Feyissa; C. Godfrey; C. Evans; D. Sawchuck; M. Sudhakar; C. Asahngwa; D. Stannard; M. Abdulahi; L. Bonnano; E. Aromataris; P. McInerney; R. Wilson; D. Pang; Z. Wang; A. F. Cardoso; M. D. J. Peters; C. Marnie; T. Barker; D. Pollock; A. McArthur; Z. Munn · JBI Evid Synth · 2022Clinical guidelinedoi:10.11124/JBIES-21-00371
- 18DOI ↗The Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews in Japanese Physical Therapy JournalsA. Takashi; I. Daichi · Prog Rehabil Med · 2020Systematic reviewdoi:10.2490/prm.20200005
- 19DOI ↗The quality of Cochrane systematic reviews of acupuncture: an overviewZ. Ji; J. Zhang; F. Menniti-Ippolito; M. Massari; A. J. Fauci; N. Li; F. Yang; M. Zhang · BMC Complement Med Ther · 2020Narrative reviewdoi:10.1186/s12906-020-03099-9
- 20DOI ↗Journal impact factor is associated with PRISMA endorsement, but not with the methodological quality of low back pain systematic reviews: a methodological reviewD. P. Nascimento; G. Z. Gonzalez; A. C. Araujo; L. O. P. Costa · Eur Spine J · 2020Systematic reviewdoi:10.1007/s00586-019-06206-8
- 21DOI ↗Causal assessment in evidence synthesis: A methodological review of reviewsM. Shimonovich; A. Pearce; H. Thomson; S. V. Katikireddi · Res Synth Methods · 2022Narrative reviewdoi:10.1002/jrsm.1569
- 22DOI ↗Methodological quality of service learning studies in rehabilitation professions: A systematic reviewC. A. Eidson; H. K. Yuen; L. K. Vogtle; V. O. McCurry · Work · 2018Systematic reviewdoi:10.3233/WOR-182779
- 23DOI ↗Implementing GRADE in systematic reviews that adhere to JBI methodological conductC. Stern; Z. Munn; T. H. Barker; K. Porritt; J. C. Stone; R. Pap; H. Khalil; E. Aromataris · JBI Evid Synth · 2024doi:10.11124/JBIES-23-00543
- 24DOI ↗Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction-rehabilitation research methodological quality: a systematic review with world region comparisonsA. Proniewicz; P. Mazzone; J. Nyland; J. Wera; J. Givens · Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc · 2016Systematic reviewdoi:10.1007/s00167-015-3588-6
- 25DOI ↗Critical appraisal of systematic reviews of intervention in dentistry published between 2019-2020 using the AMSTAR 2 toolP. Pauletto; H. Polmann; J. C. Réus; J. M. D. de Oliveira; D. Chaves; K. Lehmkuhl; C. Massignan; C. M. Stefani; C. C. Martins; C. Flores-Mir; G. De Luca Canto · Evid Based Dent · 2022Narrative reviewdoi:10.1038/s41432-022-0802-5
- 26DOI ↗Overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews on exercise therapy for chronic low back pain: a cross-sectional analysis using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 toolM. O. Almeida; T. P. Yamato; P. D. C. S. Parreira; L. O. P. Costa; S. Kamper; B. T. Saragiotto · Braz J Phys Ther · 2020Cross-sectionaldoi:10.1016/j.bjpt.2019.04.004